PrepTest 138, Section 2, Question 12
Journalist: A book claiming that a new drug(55 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the journalist's(13 more words not shown)
- AIt fails to(31 more words not shown)
- BIt takes for(27 more words not shown)
- CIt overlooks the(24 more words not shown)
- DIt fails to(23 more words not shown)
- EIt overlooks the(29 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The physician may be biased. The physician may also have a good argument.
Working for the drug's manufacturer gives the physician a reason to want the drug defended. I'd keep that in mind. But have we actually examined the critique? Perhaps it identifies a real mistake in the book's evidence about the side effects. A financial interest wouldn't make that mistake disappear.
Think about an LSAT tutor recommending the course they sell. The tutor has a financial interest in the recommendation. That is a reason to examine the recommendation carefully, not proof that every reason offered for it is bad.
What we’re looking for
The journalist moves from the physician's possible personal motive to dismissing the critique as providing no legitimate grounds. That's the move I want the flaw answer to capture: someone can have a motive to defend a claim and still offer legitimate reasons for that defense.
Working the answers
- A
The critique might also discuss other claims in the book. That doesn't settle whether it supplies legitimate grounds for rejecting the claims about this drug's side effects. The journalist's dismissal concerns those claims; the existence of additional topics doesn't expose the mistake in that dismissal.
- B
This is tempting because it also concerns a connection to the drug company. But read how much it attributes to the journalist: anyone even remotely associated with the company is unable to weigh the relevant evidence fairly. The argument dismisses this physician's particular critique because of a personal interest. It doesn't need the sweeping claim that every remotely connected person lacks that ability.
- C
Bias on the book author's side wouldn't settle whether the physician's critique gives good reasons. We could have two people with competing interests, and we'd still need to inspect what they actually say. Adding another possible bias doesn't address the journalist's leap from this physician's motive to an inadequate critique.
- DCorrect
Personal reasons and legitimate grounds can coexist. The physician could want to protect the employer and correctly identify a problem in the book's claims. D points directly to the possibility the journalist overlooks. Unlike B, it stays with the adequacy of the reasons actually offered rather than assigning a general inability to everyone associated with a company.
- E
This asks why an inadequate critique might be inadequate. Perhaps bias causes the problem; perhaps poor reasoning has another source. But the journalist hasn't established that the critique is inadequate in the first place. We need to challenge that unsupported dismissal, not supply another possible explanation for a failure we haven't established.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.